C v FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2001] EWCA Civ 302
FACTS:-
The Claimant had been placed at the age of 14, in a children’s home. She had previously been the victim of her parents’ physical and emotional abuse and she was bullied at school. Over the five months that she was there, she was bullied by fellow inmates. She was then discharged from care and sent home, but returned to another care home where she suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of members of staff. At first instance before Mr Justice Scott Baker she was awarded £35,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, £20,000 for past loss of earnings and £5,000 for future loss of earnings. The local authority appealed those awards.
A full account of the first instance decision and the facts of the case can be found in Various Claimants v Flintshire County Council 26th July 2000 High Court (Unreported).
HELD:-
Lord Justice Ward went over the facts of the case, the findings of the trial judge and the expert psychiatric evidence, including the evidence given in cross examination. The judge had correctly recognised that the critically difficult matter in this case was to assess the effect of the abuse that the Claimant suffered at the two care homes.
The Defendant’s counsel submitted that even if one viewed the Claimant’s disabilities as they had affected her, and without regard to apportionment, this was not a case that fell into the category of severe psychiatric damage as defined by the Judicial Studies Board. At best it was a case of moderately severe damage worth up to £25,000.
Ward LJ said that in his view, he was far from satisfied that the Judicial Studies Board categorisation applied to this kind of case at all. Physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children in care seemed to him to fall in a wholly different category from psychiatric damage that followed other types of injury.
The Defendant’s counsel had also submitted that when the judge held that he preferred the assessment of one expert to that of another, he must have been accepting the first expert’s view that the degree of responsibility was 30% to 50%. Therefore the Claimant’s claim for psychiatric damage must have justified an award in excess of £70,000 but that was out of kilter with any other award.
Ward LJ said that the judge had expressly rejected the exercise of putting the finding in percentage terms. What he had done was refer to the more general assessment (a) of the diagnosis where the experts differed and (b) of the part played by the Claimant’s unhappy family background. He was assessing the very significant effect of the ill treatment in the two homes, including the unlawful use of secure accommodation and the sexual abuse. The Claimant had been a 14 year old child, who had had her childhood destroyed to a very significant extent by the events that happened whilst she was in care. The award of £35,000 for the significant part that abuse played in 20 years’ suffering, which still left her vulnerable to relapse, seemed a perfectly proper award. The judge was entitled to approach this case with a broad brush, as a jury question and very much as a matter of feel. Therefore it was impossible to say that he was wrong.
In relation to the past loss of earnings, Ward LJ said that the judge was entitled to take a broad brush approach to this issue. £20,000 for loss of earnings over a 15 year period did not strike Ward LJ as excessive.
Lord Justice Buxton agreed with Ward LJ. He said that the best years of the Claimant’s life had been substantially taken from her. The trial judge was plainly entitled to give very substantial weight to that loss. He was also entitled to take into account the evidence that the effect of mistreatment by carers would, or very well might, have a multiplying or compounding effect on the Claimant’s initial vulnerability. This was a case where the usual process of attributing responsibility between various causes broke down, because the initial cause of the Claimant’s vulnerability was the context in which the Defendants had to take particular care. These consideration therefore entitled – indeed obliged the judge not to weigh too nicely arguments based on the respective causal effect of the various facts in the history.
The trial judge was also entitled to view the Judicial Studies Board guidelines on psychiatric damages, with some reserve.
Lord Justice Henry agreed.
FACTS:-
The Claimant had been placed at the age of 14, in a children’s home. She had previously been the victim of her parents’ physical and emotional abuse and she was bullied at school. Over the five months that she was there, she was bullied by fellow inmates. She was then discharged from care and sent home, but returned to another care home where she suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of members of staff. At first instance before Mr Justice Scott Baker she was awarded £35,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, £20,000 for past loss of earnings and £5,000 for future loss of earnings. The local authority appealed those awards.
A full account of the first instance decision and the facts of the case can be found in Various Claimants v Flintshire County Council 26th July 2000 High Court (Unreported).
HELD:-
Lord Justice Ward went over the facts of the case, the findings of the trial judge and the expert psychiatric evidence, including the evidence given in cross examination. The judge had correctly recognised that the critically difficult matter in this case was to assess the effect of the abuse that the Claimant suffered at the two care homes.
The Defendant’s counsel submitted that even if one viewed the Claimant’s disabilities as they had affected her, and without regard to apportionment, this was not a case that fell into the category of severe psychiatric damage as defined by the Judicial Studies Board. At best it was a case of moderately severe damage worth up to £25,000.
Ward LJ said that in his view, he was far from satisfied that the Judicial Studies Board categorisation applied to this kind of case at all. Physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children in care seemed to him to fall in a wholly different category from psychiatric damage that followed other types of injury.
The Defendant’s counsel had also submitted that when the judge held that he preferred the assessment of one expert to that of another, he must have been accepting the first expert’s view that the degree of responsibility was 30% to 50%. Therefore the Claimant’s claim for psychiatric damage must have justified an award in excess of £70,000 but that was out of kilter with any other award.
Ward LJ said that the judge had expressly rejected the exercise of putting the finding in percentage terms. What he had done was refer to the more general assessment (a) of the diagnosis where the experts differed and (b) of the part played by the Claimant’s unhappy family background. He was assessing the very significant effect of the ill treatment in the two homes, including the unlawful use of secure accommodation and the sexual abuse. The Claimant had been a 14 year old child, who had had her childhood destroyed to a very significant extent by the events that happened whilst she was in care. The award of £35,000 for the significant part that abuse played in 20 years’ suffering, which still left her vulnerable to relapse, seemed a perfectly proper award. The judge was entitled to approach this case with a broad brush, as a jury question and very much as a matter of feel. Therefore it was impossible to say that he was wrong.
In relation to the past loss of earnings, Ward LJ said that the judge was entitled to take a broad brush approach to this issue. £20,000 for loss of earnings over a 15 year period did not strike Ward LJ as excessive.
Lord Justice Buxton agreed with Ward LJ. He said that the best years of the Claimant’s life had been substantially taken from her. The trial judge was plainly entitled to give very substantial weight to that loss. He was also entitled to take into account the evidence that the effect of mistreatment by carers would, or very well might, have a multiplying or compounding effect on the Claimant’s initial vulnerability. This was a case where the usual process of attributing responsibility between various causes broke down, because the initial cause of the Claimant’s vulnerability was the context in which the Defendants had to take particular care. These consideration therefore entitled – indeed obliged the judge not to weigh too nicely arguments based on the respective causal effect of the various facts in the history.
The trial judge was also entitled to view the Judicial Studies Board guidelines on psychiatric damages, with some reserve.
Lord Justice Henry agreed.